Who Is The Biggest Assmonkey Here?

Bill O'Reilly or Brian Rohrbough. It is a toss up. I have to give it to Bill this time because he spoke more than Brian.

First off, what happened to Brian's son was a tragedy. I feel sorry for him. But I really feel sorry for him because he is a retard. And he represents a good chunk of Americans and Canadians.
O'Reilly is equally retarded. He is all pissed at the "Liberal media" for their reaction to the Free Speech segment by Brian on Katie Couric's show.
Sorry Bill, but if someone says something really stupid like Brian said, they should be attacked. If Brian's comments represent the conservative point of view, then conservatives are retards. See how that works Bill. If you want to talk absolutes about the Left Media, then it is fair game to talk absolutes about the Conservative Right.

Just because two kids allegedly perverted the theory of evolution to commit a horrible crime, doesn't mean evolution should be thrown out of school. You don't teach children that a white page is black. But that is what Fundamentalist Christians believe and that is what they want taught in school.
And then Bill said that Brian's comments on evolution were misunderstood. Sorry, but as Brian continued to talk in the video, it was clear they were not. It just wasn't understood how much of a retard Brian was until he explained it fully.
I still can never take Bill seriously when he totally went to bat supporting Bush on the Port's deal. He lost all credibility to me as did Bush.
This wasn't about intolerance as Bill's whining would lead one to believe. It is about making jest of retards and their idiotic belief system.
The Left isn't mad Brian was able to make a fool of himself, and all those who hold his belief on national TV. I imagine the far left are just frustrated that retards like him still walk the earth. I'm frustrated as a centrist.
I'd like to know how Bill would classify me. I'm pretty much a social Liberal, but I think the West should tighten immigration, and I believe that the War on Terror is the number one concern of mankind at this moment.
Back to the illogical argument Brian made: Columbine was 7 years ago. If teaching evolution in school causes children to lose it and shoot up schools, we would see a lot more of it. The Amish tragedy was not caused by evolution being taught in school. His timing on this issue is mind boggling.
Religious morals, ethics and beliefs can be taught at home, and at church. It should be the church and parents that start teaching reality, or fitting in reality with their beliefs, so that children won't be conflicted when they learn reality in science classes. I don't want to live in a world that denies reality.
As far as abortion goes. If parents can't bring up their kids not to be killers, they should really think about abortion in the first four months of fetal development.

The Collapse Of Atheism: Yeah, Right

I'm not sure if this is blatant lying for Allah, or just complete ignorance, or most likely, a combination.

I'm writing this while watching the video.

Right from the start the narrator of the video confuses Darwinism with abiogenesis.

It then goes on about how real scientific discoveries have quashed the Atheist belief in creation because science has proved the Big Bang to be correct. I don't know very many Atheists who have a problem with the Big Bang. I do know a lot of creationists who have a problem with it happening more than 10,000 years ago though.

On evolution theory, did you know that not one transitional fossil has been found? What a load of crap. Every fossil is transitional unless it was the last of a species that died out.

The Cambrian explosion destroys evolution? Sorry, but severe climate changes causes accelerated species change and many different species. The Cammbrian explosion came at the same time that the earth was finally not hostile to anything but simple animals.

Darwin theory: "Life must begin from inanimate matter".
Here we go again. Fundies really need to learn what they are arguing against.

This film was made a few years ago, before Miller trounced ID. Not that this would stop a Fundie from lying, being ignorant, or just turning the page to another lie and misquote.

Freud made more people depressed because of his idea that there was no soul and we are all animals inside. OK, I can see that. Some people can't deal with reality, but that is why most people shy away from it.

Atheism suffered a defeat because religious people hand death and divorce well. I'm trying to see the logic. I can't. I'll bet Fundies see the logic though.

Communism is not Atheism. It does not require not believing in God. And the same with Fascism. Did you know Hitler was an Atheist? Either did I. Hitler believed that Aryans were specially created by God.

Hippies and the sexual revolution was a result of Atheists. Revolution and love ruined the West. I'm speechless. I didn't know that. If not love or revolution, what else is there? Chopping off heads of those who won't become Muslim is called what?

Mankind is turning to God. Sorry, but percentage wise there are more and more Atheists and Agnostics today than there were 50 years ago.

In the end, this video proved absolutely nothing, as most of it was bullshit and a lot of it was bullshit about bullshit.


For more Muslim propaganda, go here. At least they seem to accept an ancient earth. I think.

On a sad note, I was informed earlier today that Sean from God is for Suckers passed away Friday. I didn't see eye to eye with him on the middle east, but he was an excellent writer and very witty. He was probably one of the pioneers of Atheism in the blogosphere. He will be sadly missed.

Does Anyone Have Any Evidence Jesus Existed?

I've written about this before. I've asked Christians before. Now I am going to ask again. Can anyone show me proof that Jesus existed. Even circumstantial evidence will do.

First off, lets watch this video:


It is thought that Paul was first to write about Jesus. Many years after Jesus supposedly died. There isn't much evidence Paul existed. But I'm gullible. And I will accept he did. I will accept he was no different than Joseph Smith or James Frey as far as inventing a story and suckering many. The time was right, the Jews were getting their asses handed to them by the Romans. Life on earth was hell around 60 AD for Jews and their vengeful God wasn't coming through. A God that focused on life everafter and a heavenly eternity was an easy sell, especially since those ideas were already floating around with Mithraism, Zoraostianism and the Osiris-Dionysus myth.
But I'll admit, I could be wrong about Paul existing, but then someone who said they met Paul invented Christianity and Jesus. I'll go with Paul.

Back to my challenge. Circumstantial evidence does not include the bible. Sorry bout that. This is because evidence strongly points that the New Testament was written around 150-250 AD. No good.

Circumstantial evidence does not include historians who were not there. This includes Josephus. Josephus simply would have written down second or third hand accounts. No good. He did write about Christians and what they believed but that would be like me today writing about Mormons who tell me what they believe and tell me about what Joseph Smith saw. At least we know Joseph Smith existed.

Here are some questions for those who believe Jesus existed:

1. Why were there no writings by the 42 historians living around the region of Judea
between the years 1-35 AD? Think about this, before apologizing for it. Jesus was supposedly a miracle man and even if he disappeared until he was 30 there should be have been lots written, especially after his resurrection which was supposedly witnessed by hundreds or thousands.

2. Why did it take so long for someone to write something? You gotta admit, lots has been written about him from 60 AD on. But zero before that. Again, if you are gonna state something was written before that, prove it.

3. Why is it you will accept Jesus as a savior but in many cases reject evolution which has mounds of evidence for it, and no evidence against it. Why does evolution scare you guys so much?


4. Do you admit that if you were raised (lets say adopted as an infant by Muslim parents) in a Muslim home, you would most likely be Muslim today?

Atheism Sucks readers are more than welcome to post here. I will not delete anything, and your posts will show up immediately. Christian sites tend to moderate most of the time. I've had a few comments not show up at Frank's site. He picks and chooses which rebuttals he will post. But of late I must admit, he has been lenient with me. Please though try to remember that scripture is not considered proof by me, so don't copy and paste it. It is a waste of time.

More about Jesus as a myth. Wikipedia article, The Bible and Christianity, Why Jesus Didn't Exist, Everything you wanted to know about the Jesus myth.

Anti-Evolutionists Are Reality Deniers 101

I just found this video on Youtube. It starts slow, but quickly picks up. Watch it.
I like the music too.

This video and the this link to the 15 answers to Creationist Nonsense, are great debate tools against sincere anti-evolutionists. The problem is I'm not sure that there is such a beast as a sincere anti-evolutionist.
I like the phrase "Reality Denier" to describe an anti-evolutionist and/or young earther. I'm not crazy for the word "Brights" to describe Atheists, and as I've said before, because of the negative connotations associated with the word "Atheist," I would love to change our title to "Realist."

Now here is world renowned Creation scientist Joe proving that continental drift is a bad theory. Yes, he is serious. Have a KleenX ready for eye tears.

I do believe his scientific experiment can be totally replicated. He just needs to use stronger tape.

And here is Joe's theory on dinosaurs, which he says are simply exploding lizards:

Yes, Joe fits into the Reality Denier category.

Foley: Belief in Jesus Made Him Gay

Well the truth is finally out. Those who go to church, have a larger chance of becoming gay. Don't go to church, and you'll cut down your odds of turning gay dramatically.

As a rule, politicians are some of the most despicable people on this planet. Especially the ones that get close to the top or to the top. They give favors to those who help them financially. Ethics are thrown out the door. There are no saints in the Senate or the House of Commons in Canamerica.

First Foley gets caught having cybersex with a 16 year old boy. Then he states through his lawyer, that he was abused as a child, by a clergyman in Florida.

I am skeptical this happened. The Conservative Right lobby may have prompted Foley to say this. Conservative politicians and the Religious Right lobby are equally slimey when it comes to lying about science and especially about taking a stance that homosexuality is a sickness, and something that isn't predisposed by birth.

Now, even if it did happen, here is a typical politician who is supposed to be a represantive of the people. Aren't politicians supposed to protect the people when they can? Isn't this why they are elected? If the allegations are true, Foley allowed a pedophile clergyman to keep on keeping on: 'Mary Ross Agosta, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, said Foley never filed a report of abuse, but she encouraged him to do so.'

Mary, it is a little late. How many more boys has this clergyman "turned gay" since 1969?


Fact: there is a Jewish look. There is also a gay look. There is a lesbian look too. Although there are many exceptions. Foley looks gay. Did turning gay make him look gay, or was he born with the gay look and did he turned gay coincidentally?

So Foley, which is it? Were you born gay, or did your church going turn you gay?